In an editorial in Sunday's New York Times, the paper stated that there were "similarities between the international [Hague] and Israeli rulings. In his opinion, Aharon Barak, the Israeli chief justice, agreed that Israel holds the West Bank 'in belligerent occupation' and is therefore subject to international law."

Paragraph 1 of the Israeli Supreme Court decision did indeed state that "since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria in belligerent occupation."

Perhaps the Times stopped reading after the first paragraph. The decision continues that:

Israel's fight is complex. Together with other means, the Palestinians use guided human bombs. These suicide bombers reach every place that Israelis can be found (within the boundaries of the State of Israel and in the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and the Gaza Strip). They sew destruction and spill blood in the cities and towns. The forces fighting against Israel are terrorists: they are not members of a regular army; they do not wear uniforms; they hide among the civilian Palestinian population in the territories, including inside holy sites; they are supported by part of the civilian population, and by their families and relatives...

Our point of departure is the assumption, which petitioners did not manage to negate, that the government decision to construct the Separation Fence is motivated by security, and not political, considerations."